Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9

[edit]

Template:Stadium organists

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft. Templatecreep. The Banner talk 10:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is very useful to have inline for anyone interested in sports organists. 2600:1700:CB80:39E0:E119:1877:FC0:AEB5 (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just a duplicate of Category:Stadium organists with loads of unlinked names added. Nigej (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the person who created it. I understand/appreciate the reasons mentioned. I think it's useful both as a reference point to who is currently working vs. who is retired (not in the category) and also the unklinked names--not all of whom are notable but many are--can serve as a reference point to other potential article writers which does more than just the category. One of the stadium organists made DYK in October and I think it's a topic underrepresented on Wikipedia. Jessamyn (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Millions of sports fans will find this useful. This is an extraordinarily useful template. I shared with a stadium organist who was needing background for a bio in a sports journal. As I looked at the many newspaper articles about stadium organists they were filled with accolades from fans and players who claimed these musicians made whatever game it was they enjoyed--special, nostalgic, meaningful. What I like about this template is that it includes women and the first African-American stadium organist. Wikipedia has many many pages devoted to athletes who play various sports. These musicians are just as important.Kmccook (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact you back up my claim of fancruft. The Banner talk 18:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:NAVBOX: we seems to fail #4 "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." since there is no article Stadium organists. Also #3 and #5 are pretty doubtful here. All tends to indicate that we have a set of people with little connection between them, except for the obvious - they are Stadium organists. Nigej (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, an article could easily be written about Stadium Organists if that is the only objection (they've been seeing a resurgence where there had previously been a lot of pre-recorded music, and it's an interesting trend along with the use of social media to interact directly with fans) but I'll wait to see the outcome of this discussion first. Jessamyn (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Next step is a navigation template about stadium janitors, as they are essential? And a template for stadium ticket sellers? I maintain my stance that this is fancruft and template creep. The Banner talk 22:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate that we're on differing sides of this, but you're coming across as needlessly insulting. There are twenty-two stadium organists who have articles about them on Wikipedia, all but one of which were written before I put this template together. They are working musicians who play music, usually live, for some of the largest sporting events in the United States. It's fine if you don't personally think the template should be on Wikipedia, but show me a single Wikipedia article about stadium janitors or stadium ticket sellers? Your stance has been noted. Jessamyn (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • what a classist statement about janitors. That said, this template pulls together many musicians who might not have a page and have much press in various baseball literature.Kmccook (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see this template as a useful way to connect together the pages about people working in this role. I would suggest an article be created talking more about this role and its resurgence. - Dyork (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As seen from a country where organists seem to be either general keyboard players or play in churches, an article about this position would be informative and educational, so please write it. Palnatoke (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looks like this template will work out better 1) with a lead article about Stadium organists (can do) and 2) with all the non-notable organists not included for now. I can look and see if any of them hit notability requirements, but that's a larger project. Thanks for feedback everyone. Jessamyn (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fails the criteria at WP:NAVBOX, items 2, 3, 4, 5, and given the breadth and width, 1. I would not object to converting to category or similar. Certainly if no consensus or kept, it should have its non-links removed per WP:NAV. --Izno (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Category:Stadium organists is better suited for this purpose. Renata (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, As above, I feel like this template offers something the category doesn't (retired vs. working, and a full slate of people though that may be of questionable value) and could easily be supported by a Stadium Organists article but I haven't wanted to write one since I was waiting for the results of this discussion. Accordingly, if the template is kept, I will write a Stadium Organists article and elide the non-notable names from the template. If it's deleted, I won't. Jessamyn (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Listify. Might have been better to WP:Write the article first to establish notability. Still, a Template or a List Article would be more informative than just the Category. —24.191.101.223 (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list would be much better than a template to cover these people. In particular, a list could include a brief description after the names of those organists who don't have articles yet (along the lines of "organist at Comiskey Park, 1951-1960"), whereas that kind of information can't reasonably be included here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted pages are not gone. You can always ask an admin to mail you a copy of a deleted page. Or you save a copy now to your device. Paradoctor (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Particularly for more opinions/clarity on whether editors feel a navbox is the best representation, or if a category or list article may be more appropriate (per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just noting that at this moment if I tally the responses, I see:
  • 5 Keep (and/or Listify)
  • 5 Delete
At this point I would say this has no consensus, and so no action should be taken, unless we see a large range of other editors commenting soon. - 00:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep a category alone is not a user-friendly way to browse Wikipedia, I think this template does a great job of highlighting people with this unusual profession—one that I've never heard of at least! A list article would not do this subject justice imo, and since the template creator has stated above they intend to write a full article it would be redundant anyway.Snizzbut (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:One Schoolhouse Consortium

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template with no article about to the One Schoolhouse Consortium, to its meaning is unclear. The Banner talk 12:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Acid Witch

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational template for band; listed albums now redirect to band, so the template no longer serves a purpose. Lennart97 (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:AKC standard

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Long unused inline template that was once used to link the urls for the American Kennel Club's breed standards into dog breed articles (it is unclear if as a citation or in the text). {{Infobox dog breed}} includes a parameter to link to AKC standards for American dog breeds, whilst if elements of the breed standard are being cited then {{Cite web}} is far more appropriate. Cavalryman (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Colombian dogs

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a nabox with only a single listing so is not used to navigate anywhere. Cavalryman (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org biblography

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; unlinked; looks to be created in error instead of {{Dashboard.wikiedu.org bibliography}} and never cleaned up. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Church-building-disambig

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused disambiguation template for nearly a decade. {{Disambiguation|church}} is used instead. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_9&oldid=1012543319"